Military operations require many different types of land vehicles. One type of military land vehicle is a high speed, high mobility, reconnaissance vehicle, for example, a High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (“HMMWV”). All types of military land vehicles may encounter various types of lethal threats, for example, ballistic threats, explosive threats, etc. Ballistic threats are presented by bullets and other projectiles; and explosive threats are presented by anti-tank mines, anti-personnel mines, claymores, improvised explosive devices (“IEDs”), etc. Explosive threats are often detonated by the pressure of one or more of the tires or wheels of the vehicle rolling over them or by remote detonation. Some explosive devices create a blast pressure for destructive incapacitive effect, whereas other explosive devices have a lower blast pressure and rely primarily on hundreds of flying shrapnel fragments for incapacitation effect. It is known to armor a perimeter of a vehicle to protect it from ballistic threats and to provide an underbody of the vehicle with blast shields to protect it from explosive threats. However, the type of protection chosen is determined by the threat perceived by a user.
There are many different models of the HMMWV; and as manufactured, an original equipment manufacture (“OEM”) HMMWV does not have armor or blast shields to protect occupants from lethal threats. Consequently, lethal threat protection systems using combinations of armor and blast shields have been developed for the OEM HMMWV, for example, see U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,663,520 and 4,326,445. In known lethal threat protection systems, the armor and blast shields are mounted on the vehicle by a supplier of the protection system, either at the supplier's factory or by the supplier's personnel or field technicians at a location other than the factory site. Further, there is a common characteristic of known protection systems, that is, the armor and blast shields are permanently applied to the vehicle. Although the armor and blast shields can be removed, a substantial and very costly restoration effort is generally required to restore the vehicle to its original unarmored use. Therefore, known lethal threat protection systems that have been installed on vehicles are most often considered permanent by their owners and users.
While the above approach has proven satisfactory, it does have some disadvantages. First, a HMMWV may not always be exposed to lethal threats; and it may be desirable to return the vehicle to its OEM use, that is, civilian, nonmilitary use. Thus, to burden a vehicle with a lethal threat protection system over its whole useful life is very costly in terms of vehicle operation, user comfort maintainability and vehicle life. Therefore, there is a need for a lethal threat protection system that is effective at providing explosive protection to its occupants but can also be readily removed from the vehicle when such protection is no longer necessary.
Another disadvantage of known permanent vehicle armoring systems is that such systems cannot be changed as changes in circumstances dictate. The exposure to lethal threats is not the same everywhere; but with known systems, there is only one practical way to deal with such variations, that is, apply the maximum armor to the vehicle, so that it can be used anywhere. Such an approach is, in many respects, costly and inefficient. Therefore, there is a need to permit a user of the vehicle armoring system to be able to reconfigure the armoring system to the user's current needs.